Cindy McCain The View: Cindy McCain Lashes Out At The View Video

8
1145

John McCain’s wife, Cindy McCain, lashes out at “The View” on Saturday due to them attacking her and her husband in last Friday’s interview. “The View” interview with John and Cindy McCain was pretty brutal. See the video of Cindy McCain blasting “The View” below.

Click Thumbnails for Larger Images

Cindy McCain is speaking out about how the hosts of “The View” grilled them, and “picked their bones clean”.

Cindy McCain stated ” In spite of what you see… in the newspapers, and on shows like “The View” – I don’t know if any of you saw “The View” yesterday, they picked our bones clean – in spite of what you see, that’s not what the American people are saying and what they are believing.” This was Cindy McCain’s statement at Saturday’s 119th Annual Oakland county Republican Party’s Lincoln Day Dinner.

On “The View”, the McCains were grilled on everything from Gov. Sarah Palin to their homes, to separation of church and state, and Roe vs. Wade. At one point in the show, co-host Jay Behar told McCain that two of his campaign ads are “untrue.. they’re lies”.

At one point, when McCain mentioned wanted to appoint Supreme Court justices who “strictly interpret” and “enforce” the Constitution, Whoopi Goldberg asked “Do I have to be worried about becoming a slave again?”

You can see our full post with videos of John and Cindy McCain on The View here.

See below for Cindy McCain’s comments on their treatment on “The View” video:


8 COMMENTS

  1. I am an african american male who blame white people for allowing black racist, such as whoopi to get away with their racism. Whoopi was never a slave and their are no slave owners left in America. African Americans are allowed to make a living spreading their racism openly by often saying white this and white that. They dare to mention God in their acts after their racist performance and this bothers me. How often do you hear them speak about the self inflicted genocide of the African American community? NEVER!

  2. I am an african american male who blame white people for allowing black racist, such as whoopi to get away with their racism. Whoopi was never a slave and their are no slave owners left in America. African Americans are allowed to make a living spreading their racism openly by often saying white this and white that. They dare to metion God in their acts after their racist performance and this bothers me. How often do you hear them speak about the self inflicted genocide of the African American community? NEVER!

  3. I am an african american mail who blame white people for allowing black racist, such as whoopi to get away with their racism. Whoopi was never a slave and their are no slave owners left in America. African Americans are allowed to make a living spreading their racism openly by often saying white this and white that. They dare to metion God in their acts after their racist performance and this bothers me. How often do you hear them speak about the self inflicted genocide of the African American community? NEVER!

  4. Whoopi, see, I never thought I was racist never thought that color mattered. For some reason though, the African American people have decided to make this whole election out to be about Race. Who truly is the Racist? I believe I've heard the race card one too many times, maybe the WHITE people of America, or American Indians should be afraid that we are going to be slaves…hmmmmm, who is the racist? Whoopi? Obama and MOST definitely Mrs. Obama!!!! I am sickened to death by these racial cards, threats.

    I as an American can truly say, I don't believe that to ever happen but I do know one thing, the American people had truly better think about this election and choose wisely. Someone who HANGS with terrorists, etc….hmmmmm, think about it.

  5. To Diane Gordon:
    The McCains are not racists. If they were, they would not have adopted a baby that is black.

    And, Whoopi is just plain stupid to make a comment like that. Afterall, if you look back, it was the blacks selling their own.

    The Origins of the African Slave Trade
    Back to History | by Piero Scaruffi

    In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.

    The civil rights movement of the 1960’s have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplicistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
    Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas’ The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn’s The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
    What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own kins.
    This explains why slavery became “black”. Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes). In the middle ages, all European countries outlawed slavery (of course, they retained countless “civilized” ways to enslave their citizens, but that’s another story), whereas the African kingdoms happily continued in their trade. Therefore, only colored people could be slaves, and that is how the stereotype for African-American slavery was born. It was not based on an ancestral hatred of blacks by whites, but simply on the fact that blacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling their own kins. (To be precise, Christians were also selling Muslim slaves captured in war, and Muslims were selling Christian slaves captured in war, but neither the Christians of Europe nor the Muslims of Africa and the Middle East were selling their own kins).
    Then the Muslim trade of African slaves came to a stop when Arab domination was reduced by the Crusades. (Note: Arabs continued to capture and sell slaves, but only in the Mediterranean. In fact, Robert Davis estimates that 1.25 million European Christians were enslaved by the “barbary states” of northern Africa. The USA bombed Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli in 1801 precisely to stop that Arab slave trade of Christians. The rate of mortality of those Christian slaves in the Islamic world was roughly the same as the mortality rate in the Atlantic slave trade of the same period.)
    Christians took over in black Africa, though. The first ones were the Portuguese, who, applying an idea that originally developed in Italian seatrading cities, and often using Italian venture capital, started exploiting sub-Saharan slaves in the 1440s to support the economy of the sugar plantations (mainly for their own African colonies of Sao Tome and Madeira).
    The Dutch were the first, apparently, to import black slaves into North America, but black slaves had already been employed all over the world, including South and Central America. We tend to focus on what happened in North America because the United States would eventually fight a war over slavery (and it’s in the U.S. that large sectors of the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the indifference that Muslims and most Europeans showed for it).
    Even after Europeans began transporting black slaves to America, most trade was just that: “trade”. In most instances, the Europeans did not need to use any force to get those slaves. The slaves were “sold” more or less legally by their (black) owners. Scholars estimate that about 12,000,000 Africans were sold by Africans to Europeans (most of them before 1776, when the USA wasn’t yet born) and 17,000,000 were sold to Arabs. The legends of European mercenaries capturing free people in the jungle are mostly just that: legends. A few mercenaries certainly stormed peaceful tribes and committed terrible crimes, but that was not the rule. There was no need to risk their lives, so most of them didn’t: they simply purchased people.
    As an African-American scholar (Nathan Huggins) has written, the “identity” of black Africans is largely a white invention: sub-Saharan Africans never felt like they were one people, they felt (and still feel) that they belonged to different tribes. The distinctions of tribe were far stronger than the distinctions of race.
    Everything else is true: millions of slaves died on ships and of diseases, millions of blacks worked for free to allow the Western economies to prosper, and the economic interests in slavery became so strong that the southern states of the United States opposed repealing it. But those millions of slaves were just one of the many instances of mass exploitation: the industrial revolution was exported to the USA by enterpreuners exploiting millions of poor immigrants from Europe. The fate of those immigrants was not much better than the fate of the slaves in the South. As a matter of fact, many slaves enjoyed far better living conditions in the southern plantations than European immigrants in the industrial cities (which were sometimes comparable to concentration camps). It is not a coincidence that slavery was abolished at a time when millions of European and Chinese immigrants provided the same kind of cheap labor.
    It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.
    Moral opposition to slavery was widespread even before Lincoln, and throughout Europe. On the other hand, opposition to slavery was never particularly strong in Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being eradicated only in our time. One can suspect that slavery would have remained common in most African kingdoms until this day: what crushed slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies of western European countries that (for one reason or another) eventually decided to outlaw slavery. When, in the 1960s, those African colonies regained their independence, numerous cases of slavery resurfaced. And countless African dictators behaved in a way that makes a slave owner look like a saint. Given the evidence that this kind of slavery was practiced by some Africans before it was practiced by some Americans, that it was abolished by all whites and not by some Africans, and that some Africans resumed it the moment they could, why would one keep blaming the USA but never blame, say, Ghana or the Congo?
    The more we study it, the less blame we have to put on the USA for the slave trade with black Africa: it was pioneered by the Arabs, its economic mechanism was invented by the Italians and the Portuguese, it was mostly run by western Europeans, and it was conducted with the full cooperation of many African kings. The USA fostered free criticism of the phenomenon: no such criticism was allowed in the Muslim and Christian nations that started trading goods for slaves, and no such criticism was allowed in the African nations that started selling their own people (and, even today, no such criticism is allowed within the Arab world).
    Today it is politically correct to blame some European empires and the USA for slavery (forgetting that it was practiced by everybody since prehistoric times). But I rarely read the other side of the story: that the nations who were the first to develop a repulsion for slavery and eventually abolish slavery were precisely those countries (especially Britain and the USA). As Dinesh D’Souza wrote, “What is uniquely Western is not slavery but the movement to abolish slavery”.

    (To be completely fair, what was also unique about the western slave trade is the scale (the millions shipped to another continent in a relatively short period of time), and, of course, that it eventually became a racist affair, discriminating blacks, whereas previous slave trades had not discriminated based on the color of the skin. What is unique about the USA, in particular, is the treatment that blacks received AFTER emancipation, which is, after all, the real source of the whole controversy, because, otherwise, just about everybody on this planet could claim to be the descendant of an ancient slave).
    (That does not mean that western slave traders were justified in what they did, but placing all the blame on them is a way to absolve all the others).
    To this day, too many Africans, Arabs and Europeans believe that the African slave trade was an USA aberration, not their own invention.

    By the time the slave trade was abolished in the West, there were many more slaves in Africa (black slaves of black owners) than in the Americas.

    ——————————————————————————–

    wn for money.

  6. THANKS FOR YOUR INTERVIEW ON THE UPCOMING PRESIDENTS. I WOULD RATHER HEAR REAL FACTS ABOUT THESE PEOPLE.

    I HAVENT BEEN A FAN OF THIS SHOW LATELY BUT THE FEW TIMES I ACTUALLY TRIED TO WATCH THIS I FOUND THEIR LACK OF TOUCH WITH REALITY TO BE DISTURBING! I AM ALSO NOT INTERESTED IF A PRESIDENT IS SEXY OR NOT! IT'S THE EXPERIENCE THAT COUNTS! MAY THE BEST PERSON WIN FOR WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR NOT BECAUSE A BUNCH OF WOMAN THINK HE'S SEXY….

    THE VOTERS WILL DECIDE! SO LET IT BE FAIR. EVERYONE HAS SOMETHING TO BRING TO THE TABLE, TRY SEEING SOMETHING OTHER THAN YOUR VIEWS FOR A CHANGE. TRY BEING REAL AND INSTEAD OF ONE-SIDED IF OBAMA HAS GOOD VIEWS LET HIM TALK . IF McCAIN HAS VIEWS LET HIM TALK TOO.YOUR SHOW HAS REALLY CHANGED OVER THE YEARS SORRY TO SAY NOT FOR THE BETTER!!!!

  7. The reason Mrs. McCain overreacted to Whoopee Goldberg's joke about her slave status vis a vis the original US Constitution is that John McCain and his wife are racists, MLK Day or not. I thought Whoopee was very funny, and it was one of the lighter moments in an otherwise tense show. What did they expect from the ladies of the show? I have a zillion reasons why I think the Palin/McCain presidency would be big trouble for all of us, except maybe McCain's rich friends. In this particular situation, they are so obviously so rich and so white, they had no idea of how to react to a blunt, albeit funny comment about our not-so-innocent American history from somebody like Whoopee, who is used to joking about racial issues. Why didn't they laugh? It's true, and it was funny. Black people used to not have any rights. Irony is funny – right? In the bizzarro world of the McCains, this probably never happened. Cindy McCain's history of addiction and adultery are pretty low on my list of concerns.

    Cindy McCain had everything in life and is nothing. Michelle Obama started with nothing, and is a beautiful mother and distinguished lawyer who went to Harvard Law School. I know who I would prefer for First Lady. In comes down to Druggie Bimbo or Scholar?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here